Whitesupraboy2 Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well, yeah. It's not a molecule anyway. Somebody earlier in the thread was also trying to get their head around how the H2O was 'split' and 'molecularly re-arranged into "HHO"' The answer is that it isn't, because HHO isn't a molecule. I didn't pay attention in chemistry to my terms might be bullcrap but I think I'm making sense. I aint got a clue what you're saying but it sounds good my version; they are doing some stuff to some water and then burning it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Here: I don't mean to be a grumpy old cynic , but I don't believe this. I haven't watched the YouTube videos but the first paragraph of the wikipedia article is thus: The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Meyer, which he claimed could convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results the reconstitution of the water molecules. Thus, if the device operated as claimed, the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state while extracting usable energy, thereby violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996. You can't split water into its constituent parts, burn it (thus reconstituting it back into water) AND have energy left over. H2O (water) molecules look like this: O / \ H H The only way in which "HHO gas" could be anything different is if it looked like this: H / \ H O To get the middle hydrogen to bond to both the other hydrogen and the oxygen would take an enormous amount of energy, which would flatten the battery faster than you can say "cold fusion". When burning fuels, you can't get something for nothing. Sorry guys. Here endeth the chemistry lesson HHO gas, which sounds like a con term to me (it's meant to sound like a molecule/chemical structure when it's not), is just a mixture of H & O with two parts more H than O. It's not a molecule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 While we're posting wikipedia links... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genepax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burna Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Guy I know and his neighbour are working on a browns gas unit as mentioned in the thread to aid mpg. Waiting to see how it goes then I'll try it on the pug http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Guy I know and his neighbour are working on a browns gas unit as mentioned in the thread to aid mpg. Waiting to see how it goes then I'll try it on the pug http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html This page is just comical, it'll cure cancer next. http://www.brownsgas.com/page/page/3353689.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 This page is just comical, it'll cure cancer next. http://www.brownsgas.com/page/page/3353689.htm thats quite funny. heres another vid I remember seeing ages ago! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMovXzVOzc4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burna Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 This page is just comical, it'll cure cancer next. http://www.brownsgas.com/page/page/3353689.htm You're just worried that us mere mortals will now be able to live forever and become gods also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Taking this trick/con terminology one step further. We already know that Oxygen is needed for things to burn, so why don't we call the stuff that fuels our cars "OxoPetrol" or "PetrOxygen"?, and then label it as PtO14 (14:1 AFR, assuming petrol had a chemical name of Pt). It's just not the done thing is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Taking this trick/con terminology one step further. We already know that Oxygen is needed for things to burn, so why don't we call the stuff that fuels our cars "OxoPetrol" or "PetrOxygen"?, and then label it as PtO14 (14:1 AFR, assuming petrol had a chemical name of Pt). It's just not the done thing is it? Dont go geeky on us or you are out of the 'in' crowd To be honest I think its kept simple for the general public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 dont Go Geeky On Us Or You Are Out Of The 'in' Crowd To Be Honest I Think Its Kept Simple For The General Public. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrifterWanaB Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 that lotus article, about the sythetic methanol is really clever! it seems the most realistic alternative to petrol they just need to get the prodctuion cost down to a few pence a litre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 that lotus article, about the sythetic methanol is really clever! it seems the most realistic alternative to petrol they just need to get the prodctuion cost down to a few pence a litre It needs a lot of electricity, which could come from renewable sources or nuclear in the shorter term. The great thing about synthetic alcohols as a fuel is that the storage and transportation infrastructure is essentially the same as those for gasoline. This is the big advantage over hydrogen, which requires special handling, storage and transportation. Also technology for making cars bi-fuel or tri-fuel capable is already understood. In theory, what could happen is that legislation could be passed right now saying that all new car and engine designs must be flex-fuel capable. Then in parallel the mass production of synthetic alcohol fuels could be started and the liquid tanker fleet simply upgraded to handle them. By the time the shortage of gasoline forced us to switch over, many cars would already have suitable powertrains and the infrastructure would already be in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Good idea. How you gonna get them to agree to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Good idea. How you gonna get them to agree to it? No idea. That's the other problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.